Watford FC defender Nyron Nosworthy has been spared jail after admitting injuring a cyclist in a road rage attack last year.

The 33-year-old Jamaican International pushed over Joe Minihane after they collided at traffic lights in central London on August 13.

Mr Minihane suffered a fractured wrist, which needed a full cast and up to a year of rehab, it was said.

Nosworthy, who played for Sunderland in the Premier League for five seasons before joining the Hornets, admitted assault causing actual bodily harm at Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court last week.

Today he appeared calm as he entered the dock for sentence, wearing jeans, blue trainers and a casual black jacket as it was revealed a loan move to the north of the country is on the cards.

He was sentenced to 42 days imprisonment, suspended for two years, by District Judge Louise Hammond, who said he was 'reckless' but had not intended to injure his victim.

The judge said: "Road rage offences are regarded by the appeal courts as extremely serious, because of their prevalence on the road and because of the unacceptable nature of them.

"I am of the view that only a custodial sentence is justified, but because of your positive good character, because the injury was not intended and because you pleaded guilty, I'm able to suspend that sentence."

The judge also ordered Nosworthy to pay £3,300 compensation to the cyclist.

She had threatened to revoke the player's driving licence, but was persuaded not to do so after Theo Addae, defending, said: "The impact [of disqualification] would be huge in terms of his employment.

"There is a possibility of a loan move. The move will be to the north of the country, and as a result, disqualification would have a huge impact on his employment."

Nosworthy had suffered an Achilles injury while on international duty last March and was driving to see to a physio near Oxford Circus when he stopped his car at a red light on Westminster Bridge Road.

"The cyclist was intending to go right but was positioned on the left,' said Mr Addae.

"The cyclist then set off as the lights turned green, crossed in front of Mr Nosworthy and at that point a collision took place."

The court heard the cyclist then embarked on a foul-mouth rant at the footballer.

"As a result of that collision taking place, under traffic laws, Mr Nosworthy must stop and speak to the person involved," said Mr Addae.

He pulled into Bayliss Road, where the cyclist was verbally aggressive, causing Nosworthy to become angry.

"He pushed him once and once only, causing the cyclist to fall over backwards, causing the injury.

"It was only the unfortunate manner in which the cyclist fell over which resulted in the injury," he said.

He told the court that Nosworthy had been "candid and frank" in his police interview.

"He has shown exemplary record both on and off the pitch'.

Nosworthy, of Gleneagle Road, Streatham, declined to comment following his sentence.

Another prime example of a cyclist thinking they don't have to follow the rules of the road! Why is it always the drivers fault. He was wrong to push him but the fact remains the cyclist cut in front of him and then gives a load of verbal because the car hit him. I have seen cyclists in Town going through red lights!There has to be respect on both sides, not just cyclists thinking they can do what they like.

Another prime example of a cyclist thinking they don't have to follow the rules of the road! Why is it always the drivers fault. He was wrong to push him but the fact remains the cyclist cut in front of him and then gives a load of verbal because the car hit him. I have seen cyclists in Town going through red lights!There has to be respect on both sides, not just cyclists thinking they can do what they like.JLS of wd6

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case (and none of the posters here were in court to make a judgement, nor was I), I am unable to see why a plea that a footballer should not be banned from driving because it would have a huge impact on his employment should be treated any differently to someone in other work. There are many other people who rely even more on driving than footballers. Or have they now become such a protected species that they are to be treated as above the rest of us?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case (and none of the posters here were in court to make a judgement, nor was I), I am unable to see why a plea that a footballer should not be banned from driving because it would have a huge impact on his employment should be treated any differently to someone in other work. There are many other people who rely even more on driving than footballers. Or have they now become such a protected species that they are to be treated as above the rest of us?Roy Stockdill

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case (and none of the posters here were in court to make a judgement, nor was I), I am unable to see why a plea that a footballer should not be banned from driving because it would have a huge impact on his employment should be treated any differently to someone in other work. There are many other people who rely even more on driving than footballers. Or have they now become such a protected species that they are to be treated as above the rest of us?

As it wasn't a driving offence I don't understand why the ban from driving came up at all though.

[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case (and none of the posters here were in court to make a judgement, nor was I), I am unable to see why a plea that a footballer should not be banned from driving because it would have a huge impact on his employment should be treated any differently to someone in other work. There are many other people who rely even more on driving than footballers. Or have they now become such a protected species that they are to be treated as above the rest of us?[/p][/quote]As it wasn't a driving offence I don't understand why the ban from driving came up at all though.Harry's Bar

Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.

Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.Roy Stockdill

Roy Stockdill wrote: Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case (and none of the posters here were in court to make a judgement, nor was I), I am unable to see why a plea that a footballer should not be banned from driving because it would have a huge impact on his employment should be treated any differently to someone in other work. There are many other people who rely even more on driving than footballers. Or have they now become such a protected species that they are to be treated as above the rest of us?

As it wasn't a driving offence I don't understand why the ban from driving came up at all though.

I agree with you Harry, Nosworthy wasnt at fault for the initial incident and the vehicle was not involved in the 'road rage' incident so it would seem harsh to consider a driving ban.

Seems like he got wound up by a stupid cyclist (not all of them are idiots but as is often the case the minority give them all a bad name) but a shove was not the right course of action. If the cyclist hadnt broken his wrist who knows that could have escalated to a fight, so all in all I think a right sentence in this case.

But Roy I get your point too, if someone needs their car for their employment then you'd think they would be extra careful about how they drive! I dont personally think it should apply in this case but i've heard some extreme cases where people who have well over 12 points due to speeding etc. keep getting off as they need to drive for work. Well if its that essential dont drive illegally, if you dont care about putting your licence at risk (until you get to court) then why should the state care if you do something that means you should lose it?

[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote: Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case (and none of the posters here were in court to make a judgement, nor was I), I am unable to see why a plea that a footballer should not be banned from driving because it would have a huge impact on his employment should be treated any differently to someone in other work. There are many other people who rely even more on driving than footballers. Or have they now become such a protected species that they are to be treated as above the rest of us?[/p][/quote]As it wasn't a driving offence I don't understand why the ban from driving came up at all though.[/p][/quote]I agree with you Harry, Nosworthy wasnt at fault for the initial incident and the vehicle was not involved in the 'road rage' incident so it would seem harsh to consider a driving ban.
Seems like he got wound up by a stupid cyclist (not all of them are idiots but as is often the case the minority give them all a bad name) but a shove was not the right course of action. If the cyclist hadnt broken his wrist who knows that could have escalated to a fight, so all in all I think a right sentence in this case.
But Roy I get your point too, if someone needs their car for their employment then you'd think they would be extra careful about how they drive! I dont personally think it should apply in this case but i've heard some extreme cases where people who have well over 12 points due to speeding etc. keep getting off as they need to drive for work. Well if its that essential dont drive illegally, if you dont care about putting your licence at risk (until you get to court) then why should the state care if you do something that means you should lose it?garston tony

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.

The case was "assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".

You seem to have very little empathy.

[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]The case was "assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".
You seem to have very little empathy.Harry's Bar

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case (and none of the posters here were in court to make a judgement, nor was I), I am unable to see why a plea that a footballer should not be banned from driving because it would have a huge impact on his employment should be treated any differently to someone in other work. There are many other people who rely even more on driving than footballers. Or have they now become such a protected species that they are to be treated as above the rest of us?

Hello Roy,

Not seen you on here for ages. Hope you are well.

Agree with your point here 100% there are such things as public transport, car shares and Taxis. Would have thought a person earning in excess of £50k a year would have all choices open to them...Much harder for someone who claens offices at £7 p/h in the early mornings.

CYCLIST DID PROBABLY DESREVE IT THOUGH.....

[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case (and none of the posters here were in court to make a judgement, nor was I), I am unable to see why a plea that a footballer should not be banned from driving because it would have a huge impact on his employment should be treated any differently to someone in other work. There are many other people who rely even more on driving than footballers. Or have they now become such a protected species that they are to be treated as above the rest of us?[/p][/quote]Hello Roy,
Not seen you on here for ages. Hope you are well.
Agree with your point here 100% there are such things as public transport, car shares and Taxis. Would have thought a person earning in excess of £50k a year would have all choices open to them...Much harder for someone who claens offices at £7 p/h in the early mornings.
CYCLIST DID PROBABLY DESREVE IT THOUGH.....CaptainPC

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.

The case was &quot;assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".

You seem to have very little empathy.

Don't know where empathy comes into it.

Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?

cyclist probably did deserve though.

[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]The case was "assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".
You seem to have very little empathy.[/p][/quote]Don't know where empathy comes into it.
Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?
cyclist probably did deserve though.CaptainPC

watford1881 wrote:
Without being in court it would be hard to comment.. It's easy to judge from a story in a newspaper..

Are you an idiot or a parody of an idiot?

Just asking, like.

[quote][p][bold]watford1881[/bold] wrote:
Without being in court it would be hard to comment.. It's easy to judge from a story in a newspaper..[/p][/quote]Are you an idiot or a parody of an idiot?
Just asking, like.CaptainPC

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.

The case was &quot;assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".

You seem to have very little empathy.

Don't know where empathy comes into it.

Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?

cyclist probably did deserve though.

He was in crown for sentencing. Sentencing OPTIONS that in combination made up a sentence commensurate with the crime apparently included a driving ban even though it was not a driving offence. If anything he was treated MORE harshly because he is a public figure, not less - i'd be very surprised if this would have resulted in a suspended custodial sentence if it had been you or i. Given that the custodial sentence (which it is, even though suspended) was already a certainty (read the report) the argument would have been that the additional imposition of the ban would have resulted in a total punishment not warranted by the crime. Its effect on his employment AS WELL as having the custodial sentence it would have been too onerous a punishment, There is no defence that 'my client is a footballer;, I know it's tempting to think he's 'got away with it' but if anything i believe he's been harshly treated here given that the guy was abusing him from within arm's length

[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]The case was "assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".
You seem to have very little empathy.[/p][/quote]Don't know where empathy comes into it.
Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?
cyclist probably did deserve though.[/p][/quote]He was in crown for sentencing. Sentencing OPTIONS that in combination made up a sentence commensurate with the crime apparently included a driving ban even though it was not a driving offence. If anything he was treated MORE harshly because he is a public figure, not less - i'd be very surprised if this would have resulted in a suspended custodial sentence if it had been you or i. Given that the custodial sentence (which it is, even though suspended) was already a certainty (read the report) the argument would have been that the additional imposition of the ban would have resulted in a total punishment not warranted by the crime. Its effect on his employment AS WELL as having the custodial sentence it would have been too onerous a punishment, There is no defence that 'my client is a footballer;, I know it's tempting to think he's 'got away with it' but if anything i believe he's been harshly treated here given that the guy was abusing him from within arm's lengthNick El Greco

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.

The case was &quot;assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".

You seem to have very little empathy.

Don't know where empathy comes into it.

Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?

cyclist probably did deserve though.

He was in crown for sentencing. Sentencing OPTIONS that in combination made up a sentence commensurate with the crime apparently included a driving ban even though it was not a driving offence. If anything he was treated MORE harshly because he is a public figure, not less - i'd be very surprised if this would have resulted in a suspended custodial sentence if it had been you or i. Given that the custodial sentence (which it is, even though suspended) was already a certainty (read the report) the argument would have been that the additional imposition of the ban would have resulted in a total punishment not warranted by the crime. Its effect on his employment AS WELL as having the custodial sentence it would have been too onerous a punishment, There is no defence that 'my client is a footballer;, I know it's tempting to think he's 'got away with it' but if anything i believe he's been harshly treated here given that the guy was abusing him from within arm's length

The storry reads to me that the judge was considering a driving ban and the defence put up the loan move as a reason not to impose one. My point was based on that supposition.

If the exact same circumstances were repeated but the perp was a minimum wage office cleaner would the same rules have applied?

*As I read the story* it wouldn't and that's wrong.

[quote][p][bold]Nick El Greco[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]The case was "assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".
You seem to have very little empathy.[/p][/quote]Don't know where empathy comes into it.
Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?
cyclist probably did deserve though.[/p][/quote]He was in crown for sentencing. Sentencing OPTIONS that in combination made up a sentence commensurate with the crime apparently included a driving ban even though it was not a driving offence. If anything he was treated MORE harshly because he is a public figure, not less - i'd be very surprised if this would have resulted in a suspended custodial sentence if it had been you or i. Given that the custodial sentence (which it is, even though suspended) was already a certainty (read the report) the argument would have been that the additional imposition of the ban would have resulted in a total punishment not warranted by the crime. Its effect on his employment AS WELL as having the custodial sentence it would have been too onerous a punishment, There is no defence that 'my client is a footballer;, I know it's tempting to think he's 'got away with it' but if anything i believe he's been harshly treated here given that the guy was abusing him from within arm's length[/p][/quote]The storry reads to me that the judge was considering a driving ban and the defence put up the loan move as a reason not to impose one. My point was based on that supposition.
If the exact same circumstances were repeated but the perp was a minimum wage office cleaner would the same rules have applied?
*As I read the story* it wouldn't and that's wrong.CaptainPC

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.

The case was &quot;assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".

You seem to have very little empathy.

Don't know where empathy comes into it.

Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?

cyclist probably did deserve though.

He was in crown for sentencing. Sentencing OPTIONS that in combination made up a sentence commensurate with the crime apparently included a driving ban even though it was not a driving offence. If anything he was treated MORE harshly because he is a public figure, not less - i'd be very surprised if this would have resulted in a suspended custodial sentence if it had been you or i. Given that the custodial sentence (which it is, even though suspended) was already a certainty (read the report) the argument would have been that the additional imposition of the ban would have resulted in a total punishment not warranted by the crime. Its effect on his employment AS WELL as having the custodial sentence it would have been too onerous a punishment, There is no defence that 'my client is a footballer;, I know it's tempting to think he's 'got away with it' but if anything i believe he's been harshly treated here given that the guy was abusing him from within arm's length

The storry reads to me that the judge was considering a driving ban and the defence put up the loan move as a reason not to impose one. My point was based on that supposition.

If the exact same circumstances were repeated but the perp was a minimum wage office cleaner would the same rules have applied?

*As I read the story* it wouldn't and that's wrong.

Anybody with a lawyer can put up the same defence to that specific part of the sentence. It's not as if he was being done for drunk driving and got away with it because he was a footballer. The driving licence issue only comes into it because the whole thing was kicked off by a traffic accident - even though that wasn't directly related to the charge. What people do for a living and what they earn is taken into account in ALL aspects of sentencing - there would be no point in fining a billionaire for example. The lawyer of a milkman, taxi driver or a salesman would have raised the same issue with regard to a suspended sentence PLUS a driving ban having a cumulative effect making the sentence disproportionate to the crime. If any of those people had been up for the same thing they'd probably have been fined and conditionally discharged. Every week in Watford High Street far more serious incidents take place NOT involving footballers and precious few of them result in anything worse than community service

[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Nick El Greco[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]The case was "assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".
You seem to have very little empathy.[/p][/quote]Don't know where empathy comes into it.
Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?
cyclist probably did deserve though.[/p][/quote]He was in crown for sentencing. Sentencing OPTIONS that in combination made up a sentence commensurate with the crime apparently included a driving ban even though it was not a driving offence. If anything he was treated MORE harshly because he is a public figure, not less - i'd be very surprised if this would have resulted in a suspended custodial sentence if it had been you or i. Given that the custodial sentence (which it is, even though suspended) was already a certainty (read the report) the argument would have been that the additional imposition of the ban would have resulted in a total punishment not warranted by the crime. Its effect on his employment AS WELL as having the custodial sentence it would have been too onerous a punishment, There is no defence that 'my client is a footballer;, I know it's tempting to think he's 'got away with it' but if anything i believe he's been harshly treated here given that the guy was abusing him from within arm's length[/p][/quote]The storry reads to me that the judge was considering a driving ban and the defence put up the loan move as a reason not to impose one. My point was based on that supposition.
If the exact same circumstances were repeated but the perp was a minimum wage office cleaner would the same rules have applied?
*As I read the story* it wouldn't and that's wrong.[/p][/quote]Anybody with a lawyer can put up the same defence to that specific part of the sentence. It's not as if he was being done for drunk driving and got away with it because he was a footballer. The driving licence issue only comes into it because the whole thing was kicked off by a traffic accident - even though that wasn't directly related to the charge. What people do for a living and what they earn is taken into account in ALL aspects of sentencing - there would be no point in fining a billionaire for example. The lawyer of a milkman, taxi driver or a salesman would have raised the same issue with regard to a suspended sentence PLUS a driving ban having a cumulative effect making the sentence disproportionate to the crime. If any of those people had been up for the same thing they'd probably have been fined and conditionally discharged. Every week in Watford High Street far more serious incidents take place NOT involving footballers and precious few of them result in anything worse than community serviceNick El Greco

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.

The case was &quot;assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".

You seem to have very little empathy.

Don't know where empathy comes into it.

Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?

cyclist probably did deserve though.

He was in crown for sentencing. Sentencing OPTIONS that in combination made up a sentence commensurate with the crime apparently included a driving ban even though it was not a driving offence. If anything he was treated MORE harshly because he is a public figure, not less - i'd be very surprised if this would have resulted in a suspended custodial sentence if it had been you or i. Given that the custodial sentence (which it is, even though suspended) was already a certainty (read the report) the argument would have been that the additional imposition of the ban would have resulted in a total punishment not warranted by the crime. Its effect on his employment AS WELL as having the custodial sentence it would have been too onerous a punishment, There is no defence that 'my client is a footballer;, I know it's tempting to think he's 'got away with it' but if anything i believe he's been harshly treated here given that the guy was abusing him from within arm's length

The storry reads to me that the judge was considering a driving ban and the defence put up the loan move as a reason not to impose one. My point was based on that supposition.

If the exact same circumstances were repeated but the perp was a minimum wage office cleaner would the same rules have applied?

*As I read the story* it wouldn't and that's wrong.

Anybody with a lawyer can put up the same defence to that specific part of the sentence. It's not as if he was being done for drunk driving and got away with it because he was a footballer. The driving licence issue only comes into it because the whole thing was kicked off by a traffic accident - even though that wasn't directly related to the charge. What people do for a living and what they earn is taken into account in ALL aspects of sentencing - there would be no point in fining a billionaire for example. The lawyer of a milkman, taxi driver or a salesman would have raised the same issue with regard to a suspended sentence PLUS a driving ban having a cumulative effect making the sentence disproportionate to the crime. If any of those people had been up for the same thing they'd probably have been fined and conditionally discharged. Every week in Watford High Street far more serious incidents take place NOT involving footballers and precious few of them result in anything worse than community service

[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Nick El Greco[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]The case was "assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".
You seem to have very little empathy.[/p][/quote]Don't know where empathy comes into it.
Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?
cyclist probably did deserve though.[/p][/quote]He was in crown for sentencing. Sentencing OPTIONS that in combination made up a sentence commensurate with the crime apparently included a driving ban even though it was not a driving offence. If anything he was treated MORE harshly because he is a public figure, not less - i'd be very surprised if this would have resulted in a suspended custodial sentence if it had been you or i. Given that the custodial sentence (which it is, even though suspended) was already a certainty (read the report) the argument would have been that the additional imposition of the ban would have resulted in a total punishment not warranted by the crime. Its effect on his employment AS WELL as having the custodial sentence it would have been too onerous a punishment, There is no defence that 'my client is a footballer;, I know it's tempting to think he's 'got away with it' but if anything i believe he's been harshly treated here given that the guy was abusing him from within arm's length[/p][/quote]The storry reads to me that the judge was considering a driving ban and the defence put up the loan move as a reason not to impose one. My point was based on that supposition.
If the exact same circumstances were repeated but the perp was a minimum wage office cleaner would the same rules have applied?
*As I read the story* it wouldn't and that's wrong.[/p][/quote]Anybody with a lawyer can put up the same defence to that specific part of the sentence. It's not as if he was being done for drunk driving and got away with it because he was a footballer. The driving licence issue only comes into it because the whole thing was kicked off by a traffic accident - even though that wasn't directly related to the charge. What people do for a living and what they earn is taken into account in ALL aspects of sentencing - there would be no point in fining a billionaire for example. The lawyer of a milkman, taxi driver or a salesman would have raised the same issue with regard to a suspended sentence PLUS a driving ban having a cumulative effect making the sentence disproportionate to the crime. If any of those people had been up for the same thing they'd probably have been fined and conditionally discharged. Every week in Watford High Street far more serious incidents take place NOT involving footballers and precious few of them result in anything worse than community serviceNick El Greco

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Public figure? Has anyone outside of Sunderland and Watford and football fans ever heard of him?

has anyone outside of Watford ever heard of Dorothy Thornhill but she's still a public figure. If he wasn't we wouldn't be reading about an incident involving a single push that took place miles away

[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Public figure? Has anyone outside of Sunderland and Watford and football fans ever heard of him?[/p][/quote]has anyone outside of Watford ever heard of Dorothy Thornhill but she's still a public figure. If he wasn't we wouldn't be reading about an incident involving a single push that took place miles awayNick El Greco

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.

The case was &quot;assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".

You seem to have very little empathy.

Don't know where empathy comes into it.

Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?

cyclist probably did deserve though.

I don't think the fact that he is a professional footballer made any difference to the Judge. Many ordinary people avoid bans if they can show that it would seriously affect their employment.

Do you understand that?

[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]The case was "assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".
You seem to have very little empathy.[/p][/quote]Don't know where empathy comes into it.
Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?
cyclist probably did deserve though.[/p][/quote]I don't think the fact that he is a professional footballer made any difference to the Judge. Many ordinary people avoid bans if they can show that it would seriously affect their employment.
Do you understand that?Harry's Bar

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.

The case was &quot;assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".

You seem to have very little empathy.

Don't know where empathy comes into it.

Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?

cyclist probably did deserve though.

I don't think the fact that he is a professional footballer made any difference to the Judge. Many ordinary people avoid bans if they can show that it would seriously affect their employment.

Do you understand that?

How would it affect his employment?

[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]The case was "assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".
You seem to have very little empathy.[/p][/quote]Don't know where empathy comes into it.
Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?
cyclist probably did deserve though.[/p][/quote]I don't think the fact that he is a professional footballer made any difference to the Judge. Many ordinary people avoid bans if they can show that it would seriously affect their employment.
Do you understand that?[/p][/quote]How would it affect his employment?CaptainPC

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.

The case was &quot;assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".

You seem to have very little empathy.

Don't know where empathy comes into it.

Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?

cyclist probably did deserve though.

I don't think the fact that he is a professional footballer made any difference to the Judge. Many ordinary people avoid bans if they can show that it would seriously affect their employment.

Do you understand that?

How would it affect his employment?

"There is a possibility of a loan move. The move will be to the north of the country, and as a result, disqualification would have a huge impact on his employment."

Happy now?

[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]The case was "assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".
You seem to have very little empathy.[/p][/quote]Don't know where empathy comes into it.
Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?
cyclist probably did deserve though.[/p][/quote]I don't think the fact that he is a professional footballer made any difference to the Judge. Many ordinary people avoid bans if they can show that it would seriously affect their employment.
Do you understand that?[/p][/quote]How would it affect his employment?[/p][/quote]"There is a possibility of a loan move. The move will be to the north of the country, and as a result, disqualification would have a huge impact on his employment."
Happy now?Harry's Bar

Lots of people get disqualified from driving and have to rely on public transport. We seem to be losing sight of the essential point here which is, whether or not anyone thinks he ought to have been disqualified, how is a professional footballer any different to others who need to travel to follow their occupation? I spent 30 years as a Fleet Street journalist and being a non-driver for the whole of that time never prevented me from doing my job. I cannot for the life of me see why anyone needs a car in London when there are overground trains, underground trains, buses and taxis, and if I had to go on a job elsewhere in the country I travelled on the train and used local transport at my destination. Likewise if working abroad. There is far too much reliance on the motor car, in my opinion. Perhaps if you live in the country where public transport is sparse, but in large cities and towns there is less need for them. I especially abhor people who use their cars for short journeys of no more than a mile or two when they could easily go on the bus or, if younger, walk. It's just laziness and sheer self indulgence!

Lots of people get disqualified from driving and have to rely on public transport. We seem to be losing sight of the essential point here which is, whether or not anyone thinks he ought to have been disqualified, how is a professional footballer any different to others who need to travel to follow their occupation? I spent 30 years as a Fleet Street journalist and being a non-driver for the whole of that time never prevented me from doing my job. I cannot for the life of me see why anyone needs a car in London when there are overground trains, underground trains, buses and taxis, and if I had to go on a job elsewhere in the country I travelled on the train and used local transport at my destination. Likewise if working abroad. There is far too much reliance on the motor car, in my opinion. Perhaps if you live in the country where public transport is sparse, but in large cities and towns there is less need for them. I especially abhor people who use their cars for short journeys of no more than a mile or two when they could easily go on the bus or, if younger, walk. It's just laziness and sheer self indulgence!Roy Stockdill

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.

The case was &quot;assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".

You seem to have very little empathy.

Don't know where empathy comes into it.

Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?

cyclist probably did deserve though.

I don't think the fact that he is a professional footballer made any difference to the Judge. Many ordinary people avoid bans if they can show that it would seriously affect their employment.

Do you understand that?

How would it affect his employment?

"There is a possibility of a loan move. The move will be to the north of the country, and as a result, disqualification would have a huge impact on his employment."

Happy now?

No. Just because someone says it does not make it true. Mug.

[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Well, the judge didn't seem to agree with you. She threatened to revoke his licence. In any case, I would have thought a case of road rage qualified as a driving offence. Whether the cyclist was partly to blame or not, Nosworthy pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]The case was "assault causing actual bodily harm", you can't bring a case of "road rage".
You seem to have very little empathy.[/p][/quote]Don't know where empathy comes into it.
Fact is the judge was considering a driving ban, wrongly in our shared view, but relened cos Nyron was a Carlos for the Udibees. The fact he is a a Carlos shouldn't make any difference.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DUMBASS?
cyclist probably did deserve though.[/p][/quote]I don't think the fact that he is a professional footballer made any difference to the Judge. Many ordinary people avoid bans if they can show that it would seriously affect their employment.
Do you understand that?[/p][/quote]How would it affect his employment?[/p][/quote]"There is a possibility of a loan move. The move will be to the north of the country, and as a result, disqualification would have a huge impact on his employment."
Happy now?[/p][/quote]No. Just because someone says it does not make it true. Mug.HermanGoering

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Public figure? Has anyone outside of Sunderland and Watford and football fans ever heard of him?

Anyone that's seen your drivel will know exactly what you are!

[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Public figure? Has anyone outside of Sunderland and Watford and football fans ever heard of him?[/p][/quote]Anyone that's seen your drivel will know exactly what you are!buckler

Oh dear, envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Envy, that is, of your elders and betters who are superior in education, knowledge, literacy and intellect. I expect Mr Nosworthy is a charming man but as a footballer he probably has difficulty in spelling his own name. In footballing terms he's not exactly Wayne Rooney, Steve Gerrard or John Terry is he? He is clearly a journeyman player and at 33, having been at Sunderland and Watford and now loaned out somewhere "oop north" his career is clearly on the downward path and being a Jamaican international doesn't exactly qualify him to be a public figure.

Oh dear, envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Envy, that is, of your elders and betters who are superior in education, knowledge, literacy and intellect. I expect Mr Nosworthy is a charming man but as a footballer he probably has difficulty in spelling his own name. In footballing terms he's not exactly Wayne Rooney, Steve Gerrard or John Terry is he? He is clearly a journeyman player and at 33, having been at Sunderland and Watford and now loaned out somewhere "oop north" his career is clearly on the downward path and being a Jamaican international doesn't exactly qualify him to be a public figure.Roy Stockdill

Roy Stockdill wrote:
Oh dear, envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Envy, that is, of your elders and betters who are superior in education, knowledge, literacy and intellect. I expect Mr Nosworthy is a charming man but as a footballer he probably has difficulty in spelling his own name. In footballing terms he's not exactly Wayne Rooney, Steve Gerrard or John Terry is he? He is clearly a journeyman player and at 33, having been at Sunderland and Watford and now loaned out somewhere &quot;oop north" his career is clearly on the downward path and being a Jamaican international doesn't exactly qualify him to be a public figure.

All that education and knowledge to work for The News Of The World haha! The paper lower than snake, sound like someone ?

[quote][p][bold]Roy Stockdill[/bold] wrote:
Oh dear, envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Envy, that is, of your elders and betters who are superior in education, knowledge, literacy and intellect. I expect Mr Nosworthy is a charming man but as a footballer he probably has difficulty in spelling his own name. In footballing terms he's not exactly Wayne Rooney, Steve Gerrard or John Terry is he? He is clearly a journeyman player and at 33, having been at Sunderland and Watford and now loaned out somewhere "oop north" his career is clearly on the downward path and being a Jamaican international doesn't exactly qualify him to be a public figure.[/p][/quote]All that education and knowledge to work for The News Of The World haha! The paper lower than snake, sound like someone ?buckler

Actually, old boy, I was there long before the alleged phone-hacking occurred and had retired well before it happened. When I started there it was a totally different newspaper, a broadsheet with a circulation of six million and a totally different kind of coverage. But, then, I expect you are probably too young and too much of a council estate cretin to know that. What I do know is that it earned me a jolly good salary and living and the opportunity to travel widely and meet lots of interesting people, including the rich and famous, the down-and-out, the high and the low from politicians, showbiz personalities, top coppers, judges to criminals! Rather more interesting, I imagine, than what you do?

In any event, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my original comments, but those who are rapidly losing the plot inevitably resort to crude abuse which has nothing at all to do with the debate. My essential point, which I appreciate you probably have difficulty in grasping, is that when someone plays for a mediocre mid-table, 2nd division side like Watford it is stretching credulity to the limit rather to describe them as a public figure. I expect he's on his way to Rochdale or Doncaster or somewhere equally salubrious.

Actually, old boy, I was there long before the alleged phone-hacking occurred and had retired well before it happened. When I started there it was a totally different newspaper, a broadsheet with a circulation of six million and a totally different kind of coverage. But, then, I expect you are probably too young and too much of a council estate cretin to know that. What I do know is that it earned me a jolly good salary and living and the opportunity to travel widely and meet lots of interesting people, including the rich and famous, the down-and-out, the high and the low from politicians, showbiz personalities, top coppers, judges to criminals! Rather more interesting, I imagine, than what you do?
In any event, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my original comments, but those who are rapidly losing the plot inevitably resort to crude abuse which has nothing at all to do with the debate. My essential point, which I appreciate you probably have difficulty in grasping, is that when someone plays for a mediocre mid-table, 2nd division side like Watford it is stretching credulity to the limit rather to describe them as a public figure. I expect he's on his way to Rochdale or Doncaster or somewhere equally salubrious.Roy Stockdill